Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says

[Newsjock]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

... Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

"It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

[villager]

1. And the "price" he'll pay for this is... oh, about nothing.

I mean, it's not like he's a Democrat, or worse, a "liberal" (they used to have those in the Democratic party, btw...), doncha know...

[shanti]

8. exactly

nothing will happen. they don't give a flying rat's ass either.

[molly77]

34. Wesley Snipes...Martha Stewart

Don Seigleman...two americas. One justice system for democrats. Another one for republicans.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

73. IT SEEMS THAT I GET MORE ENRAGED EVERY HOUR

[alphafemale]

141. I wouldn't include Wes in any victim list

He advocated pretty strongly for being in prison.

It's a pretty bad idea to be a famous person and say several times on TV that the Income Tax is illegal and that's why you haven't paid it and why no one else should pay it. If he weren't black and liberal he'd be a teabagger poster child.

[WhiteTara]

165. can't call Martha a victim either. n/t

[valerief]

134. Congress will pass a law saying Supreme Court justices and their spouses don't have to pay taxes.

They'll make it retroactive.

That's how it's done in the U.S.

[karynnj]

162. I think this is about disclosing the income on SC forms - the purpose being

sunlight - and make it clear if he needs to recluse himself.

[ThomCat]

137. If he was a Democrat this would be a scandal and the media

would be screaming everywhere, constantly until he resigned from the bench. Every talking head would be sadly saying what a shame this was and how poorly this reflects on the proud integrity of the Supreme Court.

But he's a Republican, so it will never get any media attention, and if any talking head is somehow forced to even admit this happened s/he will downplay it as if it is an insignificant private matter.

Double Standards have very real impacts.

[rhett o rick]

139. Exactly. Pres Obama doesnt want to look back. nm

[msanthrope]

149. What, precisely, could President Obama do about this, anyway?

You seem ready to accuse him, but given the facts at hand, what precisely would you like President Obama to do?

[rhett o rick]

154. He is the fucking Pres of the USofA. He could do a lot. But he wont. nm

[DavidDvorkin]

158. What? Tell us what he could do.

[MadMaddie]

160. So now he is responsible to personally monitor every

American citizen and their tax paying habits?

This is the job of the IRS to go after Thomas and his wife. The IRS will go after you and me so why not them.

If you want to hate just hate, you don't need to use this as an excuse.

[karynnj]

163. It's the SC disclosure form - the money was on the IRS forms

This is not trivial. Those forms are public to make conflicts of interest public, but it has nothing to do with not paying taxes.

[MadMaddie]

166. I agree that it is not trivial

but it is not the Presidents job to go after individuals that is why the IRS has it's own investigators etc.

Think about if President Obama went after Republican Thomas the right would claim it was politically motivated, just as we would if it were a Republican president.

[mahina]

2. Can we impeach him yet?

Please?

Honestly if the Citizens United ruling doesn't do it, what the hell would?

[jimlup]

27. Nothing will be done but we should realize that

If the tables were turned, the Republicans would impeach the Justice. Seriously, one party takes the high road and the other takes the extremely lowest swamp land while throwing feces. Stupid Republican monkeys. Woops, sorry monkeys I didn't mean to insult you.

[sofa king]

41. The way the President has it planned, nothing has to be done.

No Republican Senator has a 2012 reelection in the bag, and won't, thanks to the President skewering them on the middle class tax cut issue. Two years from now, 70% of Americans are going to understand that a vote for a Republican is a vote to raise their own taxes. All of the half dozen of so moderate Republican Senators (especially Maine) will have to consider switching sides to stay relevant.

And if we can pull in 12 seats, unlikely as that sounds right now, that's it. Scalia and Thomas will announce their retirements before any proceedings can take place. They are both too smart and too self-conscious to allow their tenures to be marred by an impeachment that has half a chance of going anywhere. So they will just leave--at the exact same time that the President can name virtually anyone in their places without a chance of opposition.

This is going to be the best-played election season any of us have ever seen, and I know that because the hard work has already been done.

[The Wizard]

43. I'd believe you if

the terrorists didn't own the media outlets and vote tabulating machinery.

[molly77]

70. The Wizard

Reality . Thank you. We won't have democracy until we have fair elections.

[FailureToCommunicate]

47. Wow! I guess YOUR glass is half full...

Thanks you a refreshing bit of optimism.

[edhopper]

49. is this like fantasy football

where you play a game that has little resemblance to reality?

[demwing]

55. Obama called me just this morning

We discussed your post. He said that he agreed that "the hard work has already been done," and then snorted loudly. It sounded like he was laughing. I asked if he were OK, and he said he just choked a little on a pretzel. It was a good chat. Next time, we'll try to loop you in on a conference call.

[Demeter]

63. From Your Lips to God's Ears

that's a mighty slim reed to hang one's hopes and future on. Still, stranger things have happened.

This could all be done much faster and simpler if this Administration had a clue or a principle...

[molly77]

71. The administration does have a clue.

It should be called the clinton administration. Clinton retreads everywhere. Hillary couldn't beat Obama in even an unfair election..so they just installed clintonistas with Obama as the figurehead.Did you notice in the states that used electronic voting machines in the primaries..it was all hillary all the time. Caucus ...went to obama. Harder to steal. Hill and bill have tried to do away with caucuses.

[Cherchez la Femme]

93. I'll agree with you on everything except

the total, final blame on the Clintons.

All this neither began nor will end with the Clintons, they are just cogs in the machinery too
They're just something nice, obvious and best of all already controversial to point at while the deliberate think-tanks & funders --the real evildoers-- sit in their relative anonymity & laugh at how easily we're led by the nose.

[jimlup]

65. I wish what you were saying were true

But I fear that it is not. You are making the assumption that the American people will apply logic. They are not particularly prone to higher reasoning as a mass. I understand your argument but I fear that you are wrong, dreadfully wrong.

[jwirr]

72. I hope you are correct. I often see the play behind the scenes in

what President Obama is doing. He gives them the rope - they use it at their own risk. On most issues they come out looking like the enemy. No we do not get everything we want but if we should get a second term with the house and senate in our own hands then watch us shine. Very few presidents have been able to get everything in their first term. My dad used to point out that it took FDR 4 terms. That is why they changed the law to only 8 consecutive years.

[Cherchez la Femme]

90. Ah yes, that multi-dimensional chess

that we misunderstanding peons have heard so much about.

It's all worked absolute wonders so far, hasn't it?
Like say.... the midterm elections?

:eyes:

[northernlights]

132. it worked real well on the tax cuts too...

extend them for the wealthiest. Raise them for the poorest. What a magical chess game that was.

Next up: social insecurity.

[ArcticFox]

100. High hopes, but fat chance

Impeachment has to start in the house. All this discussion of the senate means nothing unless the house changes hands.

[CanonRay]

107. I love optimists

they are so refreshing. Here's to hoping you are right. :toast:

[totodeinhere]

109. BS. There is no chance in hell that that will happen. n/t

[RayStar]

111. You are onto something

You make a good point Sofa King. If Scalia leaves thomas will follow.

[rhett o rick]

155. Yeah meth

[sofa king]

117. Hey, not a damned one of you has to believe me. It's going to happen anyway.

Just watch the circus as it unfolds. Watch the ignorant teabaggers haul weapons into Congress and introduce insane and stupid bills which will become the bread and butter of the media. Watch this annoyingly moderate President start skewering the Republicans on every single 70-30 issue there is, from health care to taxes to benefits packages.

Here's how I know it's going to happen: because it already has happened. The taxes for the rich issue? That one is already in the bag. The Republicans held our taxes hostage for a vanishingly small 3% of the population that counts for all of the money, but practically none of the votes. The Republicans cannot redeem themselves, because the Democrats in the Senate control when a saving vote for the Republican Senators will come, and that will be FUCKING NEVER.

End of story. Seven out of ten voters in every state will watch every single Republican twist on the vine on this issue--the rest are too stupid and evil to engage. Fifty million voters got the best raise they've had in years thanks to the Dems raising the minimum wage. Half of us have no health care and are watching right now as the Republicans try to keep it that way. Everyone who gets a job in the next two years will thank the Dems, while everyone who gets fired will be fired by a Republican. All of us are going to take note as disgusting candidates like Gingrich, Palin, and Santorum attract insane amounts of corporate cash while thumping nakedly divisive and racist issues.

But here's the thing: you can only lie to voters as long as the truth hasn't bit them in the ass already--and it has; you can only steal an election in America by getting close enough to steal it--and they won't; you can only frighten people who have something to lose--and millions of us don't have anything left to lose anymore. The ruse has worn thin. President Obama isn't just going to win, he's on a 500+ electoral vote trajectory, with coattails 5,000 miles long.

The hard work was drawing his opponent into the uncomfortable position of having to sacrifice its electoral viability in exchange for keeping rich assholes rich. He already did that, and the Republicans cannot make that go away, and they cannot make us forget it. We should allow ourselves to enjoy this time, because the years 2010-2012 are going to be the textbook example of how to overcome a corrupt oligarchy by generating overwhelming public support against it.

And you don't even have to believe me, 'cause I'll be right here to tell your dumb asses "I told you so" in November 2012. And when Thomas and Scalia announce their retirements just before Christmas of that year, I'll tell you again.

Edit: 2014. I'll give myself until 2014, because the Republicans in the Senate will be defending 23 seats over the next two elections. I'm betting they'll lose at least half of those, which will push Dems in the Senate into the 65-67 seat territory by January 2015, by which point every Bush v. Gore Republican on the Supreme Court will have to go or risk being kicked.

[former9thward]

128. Why don't you link to your predictions for 2010?

[sofa king]

145. Okay.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102&topic_id=4706096&mesg_id=4706596

That was Bush's 33% "basement," and it's why the GOP will never go away. If they all vote, they can easily approach the 50% necessary to win an election due to our historically low voter turnout, even without the help of institutionalized election theft. And all it takes to motivate them is stoking the fires of their hatred and prejudice. I guarantee you that they will line up in 2010 to try to cut the legs out from under President Obama's Congress, just as we did in 2006. June 22, 2010

I didn't say too much about the last mid term election because I knew it didn't look good. Or at least that's what I wish to believe after the fact.

Instead, I diverted myself with other puerile predictions which proved alarmingly accurate, like celebrity TSA scans getting loose on the Internet before New Years' Eve:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4624534&mesg_id=4625408

[former9thward]

146. Thanks! Interesting posts.

[yodermon]

135. damn dude... i'll have some of what your smokin

let's hope your right

[sofa king]

148. Fingers crossed.

The ultimate point to all of this is, just as we all suspected, there was in fact a reward mechanism for the corrupt Justices who selected Bush and Cheney. It's only a matter of time before we find out what the rest of them got.

Rewarded for an election theft. Think how hard Fox News is going to have to spin that for the next two years.

[The Wielding Truth]

115. That's a whopping amount! $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation

[Kablooie]

3. If they try to charge him with tax evasion he can fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

[bluedigger]

4. Well, that's fair.

I mean, he would recuse himself, right?

[quarbis]

5. NO

he would not.

[jberryhill]

6. ...which is why SC justices are exempt from a lot of requirements of federal judges /nt

[msanthrope]

I think I found something of note---I think these payments are actually to Justice Thomas.

For speeches like this---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

I'd love to see the 'work' done by Ginny Thomas for Heritage....

[gateley]

10. I don't think it was an income tax thing, just a disclosure of income? I'm guessing

she paid income tax on her earnings? :shrug:

I could be wrong, and I hope I am. :7

[BlueMTexpat]

39. They likely file income taxes jointly.

But even if they filed separately, so long as her income was declared somewhere, his "omission" on the disclosure form was clearly deliberate because that income was "noninvestment" income and was not otherwise exempt from taxation. Of course, it could be that he "misunderstood" what "noninvestment income" means. He is, after all, an incompetent moron, which is the principal reason he should never even have been nominated to the USSC. Or perhaps because her work continues to ensure his financial well-being, he considered it "investment income." :crazy:

Whatever "excuse" he gives - or even if he gives none at all, it will satisfy Republicans. Now, if he were even a halfway liberal justice, Reps would be calling for his head. We all know that.

Now, if her income was not declared at all - my hope is the same as yours - :evilgrin: - it would be tax evasion/fraud, as well as deliberate failure to disclose. Of course, the RW would still find some reason to justify it.

:argh:

[The Wizard]

45. When you say "halfway liberal"

You're using their frame.
Thomas is a right wing extremist, and Republicans would march in lockstep to remove anyone for any perceived infraction who might be deemed fair and honest.
Never use their framing. It's like feeding steroids to a rabid pit bull.

[BlueMTexpat]

124. Good points ... thanks. nt

[MH1]

77. Maybe they just considered it 'investment' income.

hmm, what kind of investment could that be.

[gateley]

87. Understood that the omission was obviously deliberate, but my guess was

that it wasn't a failure to report income on his tax return, so that makes me wonder what we CAN nail him on! I hate to see this golden opportunity slip through the cracks. :7

And yeah, the RW seems to wiggle out of tax evasion charges with relative ease. :grr:

[msanthrope]

56. You are correct--the income was reported, not disclosed. n/t

[PSzymeczek]

7. Clarence Thomas must be impeached,

and replaced by Anita Hill.

[aquart]

161. Well, I don't know her record but I do love your sense of irony.

[gateley]

9. FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS! We have to raise holy hell about this! nt

[Occulus]

23. What happens when a sitting SCOTUS Justice is found to have known about something like this?

Does he lose his seat on the Court when he goes to jail (if convicted of something, somehow), does the seat remain empty during his sentence, does Obama (or his successor) get to nominate an interim Justice.....?

Does the Constitution answer any of these questions? I know a sitting Justice can be impeached, but does the Constitution mention situations including cases of criminal convictions among Justices?

This is actually an interesting question. Basically, what happens when a sitting Justice goes to jail?

[gateley]

85. God - I wish I knew what was supposed to happen so we can make sure that

it does!

I'm sure the legal minds will weigh in on this (if it's covered!) - I'd like to hear what Turley has to say.

[felinetta]

122. Too bad we don't have Keith to investigate on TV.

[JDPriestly]

11. That means he lied on his disclosure forms.

Complianceow whether Supreme Court Judges are subject to any ethical code. Perhaps by definition, one who serves among the highest judge in the country are expected to have their own deep moral and ethical sense.

We are really in trouble when Supreme Court judges do not act according to the very highest ethical standards.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, including Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Pages 7-8

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.
. . .

Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

. . .

Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
. . .
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf

Ethics for
Federal Judicial
Law Clerks
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 2002

Conflicts of Interest

Canon 3F(1) advises judicial employees, including law
clerks, to avoid conflicts of interest. Conflicts arise when you
know that you—or your spouse or other close relative—might
be so personally or financially affected by a matter that a reasonable
person would question your ability to perform official
duties impartially. This includes owning even one share of stock
in a party. Members of your household in a similarly close
relationship may also give rise to conflicts concerns.
Canon 3F(2) contains specific restrictions applicable to law
clerks. You should not perform official duties where:
. . .
• your spouse or minor child residing in your household
has a financial interest in the subject matter or in a party
to the case;
. . .
• you or a close relative is a party, lawyer, or material witness,
or has an interest that could be affected substantially
by the outcome.
. . .
You or your spouse or minor resident child own stock
in a company that is a party before your judge
• Your spouse represents a party in a proceeding before
your judge

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/fjc/ethics01.pdf

Thomas is bringing this to light now so that it will be old news when Democrats regain the House in two years.

[Proletariatprincess]

12. Thomas should have been impeaced in 2000....

for not recusing himself in the Bush v. Gore decision while his son was a state Campaign chairman for Bush. This court, like the other 3 branches of government, is a failed institution.

[molly77]

Clarence Thomas should have been impeached along with all

the other SC justices who selected bush for president. It went against the constitution. Stop the vote. Select a president.

[molly77]

35. Clarence Thomas should have been impeached along with all

the other SC justices who selected bush for president. It went against the constitution. Stop the vote. Select a president.

[alp227]

102. I think you meant Scalia's son who worked for a law firm repping Bush?

I don't remember hearing about Clarence Thomas's son involved in Bush campaign though. Google returned nothing.

[BREMPRO]

121. How about just some jail time for tax evasion? Just like Al Capone

"Judge" Thom-ass has proven to be a liar, a hypocrite, a poor judge, and corrupt to the core. Never should have been confirmed. Justice Dept. should go after him to keep it out of the political realm. Let's all give Holder a call :)

[mistertrickster]

143. Damn right. And his wife consequently was hired by BushCo. nt

[tavalon]

13. Why is it that we make a $20 mistake and the IRS catches it and this

is not noticed?

[former9thward]

129. This is not an IRS issue. It is a court disclosure issue.

If taxes were paid the IRS would have nothing to do with it.

[Hubert Flottz]

14. He can do whatever he wants...

He's a wealthy high ranking republican and so he's above the law.

[PufPuf23]

15. The USA is not a nation of justice domestic nor foreign.

I wish I knew a solution.

[aquart]

16. Please get him for tax evasion. Just like that other gangster...

What was his name?

[demwing]

36. Al Capone

Brought down for Tax evasion

[msanthrope]

57. He didn't evade taxes--he failed to disclose an economic relationship. n/t

[aquart]

103. Damn. Can we get him for that?

[msanthrope]

113. Well, I have a theory on how criminal charges, and not just impeachment could result.....

If, Ginny was funneled money to pay Justice Thomas for acts like this--


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

then criminal charges could be pursued.

Now, one would have to document the 'work' Ginny Thomas did for Heritage, see if she did anything to actually earn a salary...

[BREMPRO]

123. Huh? he was charged and plead guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges

"Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department had been developing evidence on tax evasion charges—in addition to Al Capone, his brother Ralph "Bottles" Capone, Jake "Greasy Thumb" Guzik, Frank Nitti, and other mobsters were subjects of tax evasion charges.

On June 16, 1931, Al Capone pled guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges. "

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/al-capone

[msanthrope]

150. I wasn't speaking of Capone. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

17. Republicon shirkers - once again FAILing their responsibilities to America

Republicons = shirkers & grifters....

[LawnKorn]

18. "could lead to some form of penalty" - How about impeachment for starters?

Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

Eric Holder needs to take Justice Thomas before a Grand Jury and have him impeached. After impeachment, Thomas should be prosecuted for income tax evasion and sent to Leavenworth.

[msanthrope]

58. Okay--grand juries don't impeach. And Thomas didn't evade his taxes.

Yes, skewer the bastard with what can be done, but let's stick to facts.

[JDPriestly]

62. Eric Holder cannot impeach a judge and would not bring him

before a grand jury. Please read the Constitution.

[Bluebear]

19. But Anita Hill was lying.

yeah. uh-huh.

[lonestarnot]

20. So does he get tossed from the bench for that?

[Occulus]

24. I would hope the man would at least stand trial on his own for it.

I'll put $50 down right now on no charges against him ever being filed.

Of course, no sane person would lay money on him being charged for this now or at any time in the future, so I know my money is safe.

:D

[nuxvomica]

21. I don't think it was deliberate on Thomas's part

I think he was just ignorant of the law. ;-)

[demwing]

37. WOOP!

there it is.....

[toddwv]

94. +1

For best post in this thread. :)

[Joanne98]

22. Taxes are for the little people!

:sarcasm:

[polmaven]

28. To be absolutely fair...

There is no indication that the taxes on that income were not paid.

Yes, he should face whatever penalty is outlined for the failure to disclose.

[FlyByNight]

25. "It could not have been an oversight."

There will be no accountability for this, typically.

[greiner3]

26. "could lead to some form of penalty..."

Or as the old Cheech and Chong routine suggested; 'Whack his pee-pee.'

[mod mom]

29. So what? He's one of the anointed. He shouldn't have to follow laws of mere mortals.

;)

[SemperEadem]

30. I guess he doesn't know the law on those matters

Oh--then why is he sitting in judgment on a bench with 8 others who have the final say-so on, wait for it------LAW!!!!!

[knitter4democracy]

31. Disbar him. They did it to Clinton.

He might not lose his seat over that, but it would send a message.

[Enthusiast]

32. Short of

murder or pedophilia, right wing individuals live a special standard of justice. Even then, evidence of murder or pedophilia would likely go un-investigated.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Straight couples are Sanctified by Goddy God sez Obama

And of course Clarence is a Republican, Obama claims they can do no wrong, plus we'd have to look backward instead of forward, and of course Clarence is a Christian, and they are above all reproach. So move the fuck along!

[txlibdem]

38. Wait. A conservative. Breaking the law?!? How unheard of...

Gosh, I just can't believe that a right winger would commit an act of malfeasance. This must be the first time such a thing has happened?

It just goes to show that (when Repudlicans are in office) government "just doesn't work."
:sarcasm: <==== for the sarcasm challenged among us...

[Hubert Flottz]

40. A felon is a judge in the highest court in the land.

Our "Justice" system is rotten to the core like our neglected infrastructure. The neoCONs don't just want Obama to fail they are working hard to make America fail.

[mwb970]

42. Crooks and liars, every one.

republicans disgust me.

[MarinCoUSA]

44. That means the other con judges m/b palling around with a liar.

[Chimichurri]

46. He is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.

[JudyM]

152. He's an embarassment to lawyers, period. n/t

[FailureToCommunicate]

48. At least he is a hard working Justice...

:rofl:

[1American]

50. Clarence! Shame!

Ooooooh you bad boy! Shamey shamey shamey........BTW, do you report the lobbyist money you get from under the bench?

[edhopper]

51. One of the problems is the "liberal media"

is really the Washington establishment media. They always protect their own. Whereas Fox would take something like this and hammer it for days. The Insider Washington media will stay away from this story.
And of course the Obama administration will do anything to avoid angering conservatives, so they won't touch it.

[orbitalman]

52. How can we possibly have any confidence in his rulings???????????

[sarcasmo]

53. Maybe she was working for Long Dong Silver?

[Joey Liberal]

69. LOL - I've seen a Long Dong Silver flick

My first though was - that thing ain't real! Hahahahaaaa

[mzteris]

54. grounds for impeachment??

Please please?

Tax evasion should be, shouldn't it?

[James48]

67. Depends.

It's a reporting failure, not a tax evasion.

However, it COULD be a violation under 18 USC 208. That is a felony.

Five years in Prison.

And conviction on THAT would be an impeachable offense.

[Sal Minella]

76. How is "not reporting" different from "evading?" n/t

Is this legalese?

[James48]

82. Answer:

"NOT reporting" - not telling your employer that the money was made. Most federal employees have to report to their department's ethics officers whenever they or their family makes any money outside of government employment.

"evading" means not paying taxes on those earnings.

No one is saying he didn't pay taxes.

He didn't report the income to his employer's ethics office.

We federal employees have to fill out this reporting form every year, and it has nothing to do with taxes.

This isn't a TAX case. It's an ethics reporting violation case.

Still, if he didn't recuse himself from cases that Heritage Foundation filed briefs on (Citizen's United is such a case), then he could be cited for criminal conflict of interest under 18 USC 208, and that's punishable by up to a five year felony under 18 USC 216.

[Sal Minella]

106. Thank you for the clarity of your explanation.

Much appreciated! :)

[mzteris]

83. but if you deliberately fail to report

isn't that tax evasion?

[Sal Minella]

75. It's a federal tax, so evading paying it should be a federal offense.

It's really hard to believe he thought he could get by with this -- if the feds let this slide, the IRS has no hope of capturing ANY taxes from any high-income citizens.

Maybe Long Dong thinks you don't have to pay taxes on money you intend to stuff into Swiss Bank Accounts?

Maybe it's normal to have contempt for a job you can lie your way into?

[jeff47]

80. It's not a tax at all

SC justices are required to disclose their spouses income. He didn't. That disclosure requirement has nothing to do with taxes.

[Sal Minella]

105. Thanks -- I misunderstood what financial document this was.

I'm too eager to believe bad things about Clarence, I guess. My bad.

[msanthrope]

59. I wonder if the payments to her were a way to funnel payment to him for speeches--

Like this one.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

[thereismore]

60. I guess $700K is nothing for Thomas. nt

[NeonDog]

61. Well paid to make harassing phone calls to Anita Hill

[Historic NY]

64. IOKIYARSCOTUS.

[James48]

66. Criminal charges under 18 USC section 208

Failing to report isn't a crime, but if Heritage Foundation has ANY INTEREST in ANY CASE heard by Thomas during the time period, you could make the argument that he is in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 208. If it was not intentional, the punishment is up to a year in prison. If it was intentional, the punishment is FIVE years in prison.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000208----000-.html

[BetsysGhost]

84. interesting

:toast:

[msanthrope]

112. Except that he did the report the income. He just didn't disclose it. n/t

[Joey Liberal]

68. He must be impeached - if not?

If he's not impeached why should we bother to vote for Democrats in the next elections? Maybe a President named Palin (I shudder at the thought) will force the Democrats to grow a pair of balls again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. He didn't lie about it, it was a "dramatic omission"

Well, Thomas should be happy. They're treating him like a white man.

[BetsysGhost]

86. whoa!

:evilgrin:

[snot]

78. I think the upshot is, anyone involved in any cases he decided during that period

who could show Thomas should have recused himself based on conflict of interest should be able to complain and get a re-hearing before the other justices (i.e., MINUS Thomas).

E.g., if, say, I'd been a party in a suit, and the Heritage Foundation or one of its major funders had been on the other side, and Thomas had participated in deciding the case and had voted in favor of the Heritage Foundation side, and that side had won in the case. Then I'd be in a position to complain that he may have been biased and that such bias actually harmed me. (If Heritage or its affiliates were not involved in the case, or if Thomas had voted in my favor, I'd have no basis to claim any harm to me personally.)

Technically, also, Thomas would have breached ethical rules against allowing there to be an "appearance of impropriety." As others have suggested, it's not clear who might be complained to about that, except perhaps the other justices.

[Crunchy Frog]

79. Can he be impeached?

You know that if the shoe were on the other foot the Repukes would be impeaching.

[bulloney]

81. Paging Darrell Issa! Paging Darell Issa!

Does anyone think the Congressional Carjacker will ever bring this topic up?

Nah, he's too busy conducting his partisan witch hunts on Obama.

[Cherchez la Femme]

88. 'about' nothing?

Naw... just plain nothing. Singular. No big deal.
He'll pay, in any way, nothing at all.

[Ozymanithrax]

89. Income Tax Evasion...

Last I heard,you could get into some trouble for that. I wonder if the IRS has been calling his home, or his place of work.

Not...

[msanthrope]

114. Except that he did the report the income. He just didn't disclose it. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

126. If he paid taxes, then the only problem is a conflict of interest.

And there is no rule that says a Supreme must step down in a conflict of interest that I know of. There should be ethics rules of judges on the highest court. Now, if someone who had a case before the court feels he voted due to unfair influence, they could sue him.

Even in what looks like a clear case, the House will not impeach him, even if Democrats still controlled it. And the Senate would not convict him.

It is one of the things about our system that is tragically broken.

[msanthrope]

131. I think something criminal might be going on though--money paid to HER, for HIS

services.

Like when he spoke to Heritage---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

I'd like to see what work Ginny supposedly did for Heritage..aand using that line of inquiry, what other conflicts result.

[indievoter]

91. Not Tax Evasion

Guys He didn't fail to pay taxes. Thats not what this is. This is a disclosure form for the Supreme Court itself. It's a stretch to even get it seen as a violation of law. Thats why in the article it says "could be interpreted as a violation of the law" and if the people doing the "interpreting" have what appears to be a vested political interest in seeing Thomas out then it's even more likely to go no where. There wouldn't be a strong case bottom line.

[Faygo Kid]

92. He can do anything he wants. He is above the law.

"No man is above the law." Yeah, right. Many clearly are, and that certainly includes right wing Supreme Court justices.

[kestrel91316]

95. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH

[bongbong]

96. Here's the only penalty Uncle Tom will pay

Fat Tony will walk up to and say "They're going to impeach you!". Uncle Clarence will get very scared, some more of his hair will turn white, and then Fat Tony will say "Early April Fools! HA HA As per normal procedure, you won't have anything bad happen to you, but you will actually gain from it because you'll be able to get more speaking fees for whining about the evil libs doing this to you!"

Uncle Tom will laugh so hard he'll have a minor hernia, which will be fixed at taxpayer expense. That is the only penalty he'll have.

[SHRED]

97. I accidentally hit the Unrecommend..damn it

The least I can do is KICK this thread!

[Dollface]

98. Sometimes I wish I were prone to violence but I even carry spiders outside.

[benld74]

99. Anyone THAT stupid doesnt deserve to sit behind a school desk let alone a SCOTUS desk

[craigmatic]

101. Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me.

[AllyCat]

104. No, it wasn't an oversight. He snubs his nose at us every day.

It's compulsive.

[placton]

108. shhhh! this is all in the PAST

and we won't waste time with that - but look forward!

[Bluebear]

116. +

[stockholmer]

110. IMPEACH him, and Tiny Tim 'Turbo Tax' Geithner the tax cheat as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011802070.html

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/13/treasury-geithner-obama-biz-beltway-cx_bw_0113geithner2.html

[Disintermedia8]

118. He will be impeached.

There is this and there is lying under oath at his confirmation about extramarital relations. As we know a former mistress has come out and confirmed everything that Anita Hill alleged. By the way where is Senator Alan Simpson these days with his famous faxes hanging out of his pockets from people aghast at Anita Hill's allegations.

[DavidDvorkin]

130. Do you really think so?

I'd be delighted if it happened, but I don't see it. The Republican-controlled House won't even take up the issue, let alone vote to impeach him.

[LiberalFighter]

119. Impeach the scumbag.

[felinetta]

120. And of course these arrogant asshats aren't showing up for the State of the Union.

[fascisthunter]

125. and the Dems will Let Him Get Away with It, Once again, Ignoring Corruption

and epode wonder how the GO gets away with so much... easy, the deems will do nothing about it. And doing nothing about corruption for political purposes just highlights how corrupt our own party leadership is.

[somone]

127. Such a law-abiding jurist

What a damn crook.

[Jackpine Radical]

133. $686,589? Chump change. What, does she work for tips or something?

How the hell is a guy sposed to keep track of every penny-ante little deal like that that slides by?

[mistertrickster]

144. Good point. And under Bush, almost 30 percent of that was taxed!

How's a millionaire gonna get by these days?

[usregimechange]

136. Good topic for a Hearing at the Judiciary.

[Imagevision]

138. Where's Chris Mathews & Rachel when you need them or

is the entire M$M owned by Murdoch?!

[TxVietVet]

140. Where is the outrage?

[mistertrickster]

142. IMPEACH NOW! nt

[Paladin]

147. Why Get Enraged, When Odds Are That NOTHING Will Be Done About This? (n/t)

[mommalegga]

151. What amazes me if these public figures

whose every move is scrutized think they can to get away with it. That applies to all areas of life...

[DavidDvorkin]

153. Obama has nothing to do with it. Impeachment happens, or doesn't happen, in the House.

Which means that it won't happen.

I know that there's a contingent here that despises Obama and wants to blame him for anything and everything, but this really has nothing to do with him at all.

[rhett o rick]

156. The pres has the Patriot Act at his disposal and the domestic spying. dont tell me he has no blame

here. He is the most powerful man in the world.

[DavidDvorkin]

157. What? What does that have to do with impeachment?

What are you saying he should do? What are you blaming him for not doing?

[James48]

159. Take out the trash day

And the story is dead by Monday morning.

Sad, sad day for America when the story can die that quickly.

[lonestarnot]

164. Why haven't I heard one peep of this other than here?

[JNelson6563]

167. He needs to be impeached.

Asshole